maddogs hideaway

Welcome to Maddogs hideaway, The poormans predictor. Somedays I just feel like ridin...!

Name: MADDOG10
Location: Beautiful Florida
Country: United States
Interests: restoring old cars, winning the lottery, avid football fan, and riding my motorcycles... Both (Harleys)...!!

Friday, September 13, 2013

When a Community Organizer Goes to War

Coulter Column: When a Community Organizer Goes to War

By Ann Coulter | September 5, 2013 | 18:31

 
A  A 
 
Ann Coulter's picture 
   

Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that "the rest of the  world" hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs at  us.

With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria,  President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as commander in  chief under the Constitution. The president doesn't need congressional approval  to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor -- amazingly -- has he said he'll abide  by such a vote, anyway.

Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to cover  Obama's own idiotic "red line" ultimatum to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria  on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to get Congress on the  record so that whatever happens, the media can blame Republicans.

No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security  interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- can  support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.

It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that  Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still waiting  to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)

It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad  had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of  thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades.

It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people,  administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in  front of the victim's wife or children.

It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United  States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or  giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. -- someone like Maj.  Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.

It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle  East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in  other countries.

It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria  would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.

It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put  al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a  functioning, peaceful democracy. And it would be different if an attack on  Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that that they would  instantly give up their WMDs -- say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.

If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth  supporting! All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically  opposed that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true --  indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent was  Barack Obama.

President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former  president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a conspirator  in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to the families of  suicide bombers in Israel.

Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi was so  terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished his WMDs  -- which turned out to be far more extensive than previously imagined.

Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it in  Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida fighters,  including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq became the  first genuine Arab democracy, holding several elections and presiding over a  trial of Saddam Hussein.

Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led  operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and Libya?

As for chemical weapons -- the casus belli for the current drums of war --  in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered roughly 5,000  Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX gas. The victims  blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before dropping dead. Thousands more  would die later from the after-effects of these poisons.

Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds,  resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many. That's to  say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed with poison gas.  Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently, Secretary of State John Kerry  said his use of chemical weapons put him in the same league as "Adolf Hitler and  Saddam Hussein."

Not even close -- but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that removed  such a monster as Hussein?

There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both establishing  that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to give them up. (For  the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq, just no  "stockpiles." Those had been moved before the war, according to Saddam's own  general, Georges Sada -- to Syria.)

On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using chemical  weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered with poison gas by  Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the military operation that  removed Hussein? Why did he call that a "war of choice"?

Obama says Assad -- unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein -- has posed  "a challenge to the world." But the world disagrees. Even our usual ally,  Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act alone to stop a  dictator, who -- compared to Saddam -- is a piker.

At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good cause  the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only reason to take out  Saddam Hussein.

Read more:  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2013/09/05/coulter-column-when-community-organizer-goes-war#ixzz2epFEjsb7

8 Comments:

emilyg said...

Good read.

10:09 PM
rdgrnr said...

Bush took us to war for a good cause.
Obama wants to take us to war to keep him from feeling like what he is at the core of his being - a pussy.
And everybody knows it.
And of course our local trolls here who were rabidly anti-war under Bush, fully support Obama's war.
Why?
Cuz they can identify with Obama.
And why do they identify with Obama so much?
Cuz they're pussies too.
And everybody knows it.

12:42 AM
tiparker119 said...

Thanks rdgrnr....agree 100%...!!

6:11 AM
sully16 said...

My question, Why are puss one and puss two ( Odumdum and Kerry} giving extreme details of the whole operation? Forewarned is forearmed!

9:28 AM
MADDOG10 said...

Sully, that's because neither one of them have the common sense that GOD gave a Jack-Ass.

12:08 PM
dallascowboyfan said...

Bush took us to war because there was an attack on Americans. Hussein wants us to go to war because Syrians are killing each other WTH.

12:49 PM
MADDOG10 said...

Dallas, His thinking is his foreign policy, they're both better off left outside when it comes to diplomacy. He had to rant and rave to let the American public think he knew what he was doing.. He failed miserably on both ends..
It's the low informed voters that are crying the most, because their beloved black man is being attacked. They just don't get it, It's not his COLOR that everyone is against, it's his character and his ability to lead, which everyone knows now that he's a failure at both..!!!!

6:36 PM
dallascowboyfan said...

So true Maddog.

7:20 PM

Post a Comment

<< Home